Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Perused the copy of the complaint and also the registration of the criminal case under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well as appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of acquittal. It is also important to note that the complainant herself has admitted in the complaint that there was a financial transaction between them and payments were also made through bank. Thus, it is clear that the complainant borrowed the money from the petitioner from 2015 to 2019. It is also important to note that an allegation of kidnapping was made in the complaint that is in the month of January 2019, but the complaint was given in the month of November 2019 and no proper explanation on the part of respondent No.2 regarding delay in lodging the complaint though explained for the said date. But not stated what prevented her to give complaint afterwards. It is also the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that by threatening, the petitioner obtained the signature on the agreement and took 21 cheques from them but those cheques were not seized during the course of investigation. No doubt, there is a reference in the complaint that earlier to the present complaint, a money laundering case was registered against the petitioner herein. It is also important to note that the complainant is offshoot of PCRs filed against respondent No.2 in the month of October that is on 03.10.2019 and proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act was initiated but the complaint was given on 27.11.2019, even though an allegation of kidnapping and abduction was made in the month of January 2019. From January 2019 till November 2019, the complainant was kept quiet and not lodged any complaint. Thus, the records reveal that after filing of the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the present complaint is filed. It is very clear that there were financial transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.2 that too for a period of four years i.e., from 2015 to 2019. The investigating officer comes to the conclusion that it is not a case of kidnapping thus, deleted Section 365 of IPC and invoked Section 420 of IPC and also Section 384 of IPC. This Court would like to refer the very Section 420 of IPC which reads as follows:

16. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that a specific allegation of kidnapping of her husband and abduction was made but no such cheques which have been forcibly taken were seized during the course of investigation. Admittedly, there was a financial transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that two cases were initiated against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act and cognizance was taken and the cases are pending. Having considered the material available on record it is nothing but offshoot of a complaint as against the proceedings initiated against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is also important to note that in the complaint there is no allegation of dishonest intention on the part of this petitioner. It is very clear that in order to invoke Section 420 of IPC, there must be dishonest intention from the very beginning which is sine qua non to hold that accused is guilty for commission of the said offence. The police while filing the charge sheet, deleted Section 365 of IPC and invoked Sections 420 and 384 of IPC. When the investigating officer comes to the conclusion that there was no kidnapping and also not seized any cheques as alleged by the complainant, the question of invoking Section 420 of IPC does not arise. Only if any such valuable document is collected or deceived to deliver any property or any person, the very allegation of kidnapping or collecting cheques have to be made. But in the case on hand, no such ingredients are found to invoke Section 420 of IPC.

17. The police also filed the charge sheet under Section 384 of IPC against the petitioner and considering the same, this Court would like to extract Sections 383 and 384 of IPC which reads as follows:

"383. Extortion.--Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion".

22. Having perused the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra and also the recent judgment of the Apex Court, this Court has to consider the material available on record. In the case on hand, I have already pointed out that though alleged threat is made, the investigating officer comes to the conclusion that there was no material with regard to the allegation of kidnapping. In order to invoke an offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC, there must be a specific ingredient of Section 383 but prima facie, no such valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security is recovered at the instance of the petitioner hence, continuing of proceedings against the petitioner in the absence of such recovery amounts to an abuse of process. Hence, it is a fit case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner or otherwise it leads to miscarriage of justice. This Court already pointed out the fact that already there were monitory transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also the material discloses for having taken the amount and complaint was filed belatedly that is after initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the complainant. Hence, it amounts to abuse of process.